Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — This appeal is concluded against the appellant by the considered decision of this Commission in I (1992) CPJ 334, Gurcharan Singh of Barara v. Shashi Bhushan of Barara & Ors. It, therefore, suffices to notice the facts and the merits in their barest outline.

2. The appellants had instituted the complaint before the District Forum on the 1st of April, 1992. It is unnecessary to advert to the facts because on notice being issued to the respondent a threshold preliminary objection was raised on the ground that the earlier complaint No. 216 of 1990 by the appellant in connection with the same telephone and with the same grievance was dismissed in default. A replication was filed on behalf of the appellants wherein this fact was not disputed. The District Forum upheld the preliminary objection in view of the ratio in Gurcharan Singh of Barara v. Shashi Bhushan of Barara & Ors. (supra).

3. Mr. Ajay Singhal, the learned Advocate for the appellant faced with the uphill task of a binding precedent to the contrary was somewhat half-hearted in his submissions. It was sought to be argued that the appellants had first sought restoration of the compla